Revisiting Home: Tibetan Refugees, Perceptions of Home (Land) and Politics of Return Tunga Tarodi ISBN 978-81-7791-122-0 © 2011, Copyright Reserved The Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore Institute for Social and Economic Change (ISEC) is engaged in interdisciplinary research in analytical and applied areas of the social sciences, encompassing diverse aspects of development. ISEC works with central, state and local governments as well as international agencies by undertaking systematic studies of resource potential, identifying factors influencing growth and examining measures for reducing poverty. The thrust areas of research include state and local economic policies, issues relating to sociological and demographic transition, environmental issues and fiscal, administrative and political decentralization and governance. It pursues fruitful contacts with other institutions and scholars devoted to social science research through collaborative research programmes, seminars, etc. The Working Paper Series provides an opportunity for ISEC faculty, visiting fellows and PhD scholars to discuss their ideas and research work before publication and to get feedback from their peer group. Papers selected for publication in the series present empirical analyses and generally deal with wider issues of public policy at a sectoral, regional or national level. These working papers undergo review but typically do not present final research results, and constitute works in progress. REVISITING HOME: TIBETAN REFUGEES, PERCEPTIONS OF HOME (LAND) AND POLITICS OF RETURN Tunga Tarodi* Abstract This paper attempts to explore the notion of home from the perspective of the Tibetans living in exile in India for the last five decades. Using primary data collected from two Tibetan settlements in India, this paper attempts to portray how Tibet is reconstructed in exile among the three generations of Tibetans. We seek to understand whether the Tibetans feel at home in India or do they carry a sense of homelessness with them. Introduction The concept of ‘home’ has been visited with a surge of academic interest, as the number of refugees, migrants and displaced people across the globe are on the increase. The literature on diaspora and transnational studies reveal that the meanings and significance of ‘home’ are changing. ‘Home’, as scholars have noted, traditionally refers to both physical dwelling and symbolic space, and represents a sense of safety, stability and rootedness. But with the number of people crossing borders and boundaries, either out of choice or involuntarily increasing, and more and more people beginning to live away from their native places, there is a rethinking on this concept. This paper attempts to explore the notion of home from the perspective of the Tibetans living in exile in India for the last fifty years. In the first section, we explore how Tibetans perceive Tibet and how Tibet is imagined across different generations. In this context, the second section seeks to understand whether the Tibetans feel at home in India (or not), or do they carry a sense of homelessness with them? The following section begins with a brief overview of different conceptualisations of ‘home’ which form the main backdrop for the research findings and discussion presented subsequently. Changing notions of ‘home’: It is well acknowledged in literature that ‘home’ is a ‘multidimensional concept’ (Mallett, 2004:64). In this section, the dominant themes relating to home are considered, rather than an exhaustive review of the concept, which has been carried out by other scholars and is beyond the scope of this paper.1 The purpose of this section is to touch upon recurring meanings of home that one can come across in literature to foreground the rese arch findings. * PhD Fellow, Centre for Political Institutions, Governance and Development. I would like to thank the referee for useful suggestions and Dr Inbanathan for his comments on this paper. 1 Some of the exhaustive reviews are by Somerville (1992), Mallett (2004), and Moore (2007). The Oxford Dictionary lists eight meanings of ‘home’ as noun, a dozen meanings of home as used in idioms, and an almost equal number of meanings attached to ‘home’ as used in adjectives and adverbs. The point that is being made is the cent rality of ‘home’ in our everyday lives which has permeated in language use. Home, as Saunders notes, is “the crucible of our modern society” (cited in Moore, 2007:146). It is related to both physical and symbolic space and is rooted in socio-cultural understandings. Home most commonly refers to ‘house’, which is a physical dwelling where one lives. Expanding this aspect of home, Saunders and Williams (1988: 82) define it as a locale which is “simultaneously and indivisibly a spatial and a social unit of interaction”. It is the physical ‘setting through which basic forms of social relations and social institutions are constituted and reproduced’ (Mallett, 2004: 68). Further, it is argued that home denoting the household forms the ‘basic economic unit’ through which relations of production and consumption can be analyzed. Home is thus related to both the economic and social dimensions. ‘Home’ also means a private, familial realm which provides a space for close, caring relationships (Sarup, 1992: 90). Again, this view is contested as home isn’t the ideal ‘haven’, and is linked culturally and historically to the changing concept of family. Moreover, in idealizing home as a safe and secure place, it ignores the fact that women and children are often most insecure in their own houses on account of domestic violence and abuse. Home not only represents the space for bringing up a family, but also symbolizes family itself. It ‘typically symbolizes the birth family dwelling and the birth family or family of origin...It also symbolizes family relationships and life courses enacted within those spaces.’ (Mallett, 2004: 73) People’s dream for ideal homes has been noted in literature. These often take on the form of sentimental or/and romantic notions, may be even a nostalgic search or journey for a lost time and space (Khalid and Al-Ali, 2002; Mallett, 2004). Critics have noted that these notions do not take into account the diverse and lived experiences and understandings of people. A more sophisticated conceptualization is provided by other scholars who reject the divide between the ‘real’ and the ‘ideal’ home. They point out that both the concepts – the real home and the imagined /ideal home are integral to the construction of the concept of ‘home’. The significance of the term ‘home’ is primarily due to the fact that millions of people today across the globe are displaced from their homes on account of wars, economic instability, or genocide. ‘Home’, in the literature on migration, diaspora and cultural studies, has been widely discussed from this perspective. As Sarup (1992: 90) suggests, the concept of home is tied to a sense of one’s identity, “the story we tell of ourselves which is also the story that others tell of us.” The question is, how is home connected to a sense of identity? The connection between home, place and ‘rootedness’ forms the main link between home and a sense of identity. Home, as Sarup (1992) notes, is in a place, and places are socially constructed and not static. ‘Place’ is a crucial variable, as all relationships are embedded in a ‘place’, which gives ‘placeable bonding’, a fundamental human importance. ‘Roots’ which in literature refers to being firmly established in a place is also considered a primary need, a facet of one’s identity. The search for ‘roots’ 2 often begins when people move away from their roots, and this is more so when people cross borders, as migrants and refugees. While the importance of rootedness and the links between place and culture feature frequently in the migration lit erature and discussion of migrant’s lived experiences, these links should not be construed as unproblematic. Malkki (1992), in a fascinating essay, discusses the implications of positing links between people and places in academics as well as everyday discourse. Malkki notes that the literature on nations and nationalism takes for granted that these are fixed in space, and the map is the most pervasive representation of this idea. Thus, nations are always perceived to have a territorial base. Both nationalist discourses and imagery think of people as being rooted in a place. These arborescent ‘roots’ are nourished in national soil, the ‘homeland’, ‘motherland’/’fatherland’. In other words, these commonly used terms in the language reveal a tendency among nat ionalists and scholars suggesting that “each nation is a grand genealogical tree,...rooted in the soil that nourishes it. By implication, it is impossible to be part of more than one tree.” This means, simply put, one nation(al), one homeland. In a similar vein, connections between nations and culture are given territorial linkages. Anthropologists, notes Malkki, have conceptualized cultures as ‘native’, ‘autochthonous’, and ‘indigenous’, and by ascribing places ‘native status’, have contributed to this idea. Since the connections of people to places and places to culture are seen as natural, those people who are displaced, such as the refugees, are perceived as uprooted from their homes and culture. This leads to a view of the displaced people as ‘problemat ic’. Malkki (1995) contests this essentialist understanding of people’s links to places by contrasting it with the ways in which the Hutu refugees construct nation and identity in exile. This does not amount to the denial of the importance of place in the construction of one’s identities. Rather, it is not just the place of birth, or the ‘native place’ that matters most in the construction of identities, but also the places to which people develop inextricable attachments through remembering, living in and imagining them. ‘Home’, thus symbolically represents the nation or ‘homeland’, and hence, is connected to a sense of national identity.